Re: [ALL] review of n-ary relations

Reminder: in my judgment none of these need be addressed before first WD


I wrote:
> Technical issues with example files
> ===================================
> Looking at the diagnosis files ...
> 
> N3
> 
> 1) the comment concerning the base URL at the top of file has no effect, 
> and is just a comment
> 
> 2)
> 
> (Sorry I need to go now, I will complete the technical review of the 
> example files later)
> 
2)

The N3

@prefix : <>

uses the retrieval URL as the binding for :

Thus

:diagnosis_probability

expands to the URI

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/n-aryRelations-20040623/diagnosis.n3#diagnosis_probability

and when the file is moved to TR space will have two different readings 
depending on whether it is read through the latest version link or the 
this version link :(

I suggest that a URL should be decided upon for this namespace (in fact, 
I have already suggested the use of two URLs, one for the T-Box and one 
for the A-Box) and that URL should be used explicitly in the prefix 
declaration

e.g.

@prefix : <http://www.w3.org/example#> .


3)

Furthermore, this does not correspond to the RDF/XML because that uses 
the following URI for diagnosis_probability

http://protege.stanford.edu/diagnosis#diagnosis_probability

4)

A further problem is using .owl as a file suffix - suggest that the OWL 
recs suggest using RDF/XML and the RDF Syntax (Revised) Rec suggest 
using the .rdf suffix. Since you are already using this suffix for the 
RDFS version it suggests that maybe two different file basenames would 
be a better way of distinguishing the RDFS from the OWL versions.

5)
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/n-aryRelations-20040623/purchase.owl

contains


     xmlns:p1="http://"

which is ugly and unnecessary. I think it is borderline legal by XMLNS, 
but it is certainly not a good practice. Suggest delete it.


Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 09:54:31 UTC